On Apr 4, 2005 10:14 PM, Dave Hornford <OSD at hornfordassociates.com> wrote: > Collins Richey wrote: > > >> endeavors justify the decsion - ethics, community vs. vendor support, > >> etc., etc. I've heard many comments to the effect that we CentOS users > >> are just leaches, since RedHat does the major work. I would like to > >> know how those of you who use CentOS in commercial > > > > [ snips ] > I'm sorry if I am unable to follow the question of ethics here. At what > point did Red Hat's efforts in the open source community become magical > and change the ethical environment Red Hat lives in for people > downstream of Red Hat? Your question pre-supposes that because CentOS is > downstream of Red Hat then somehow it is different than Red Hat being > downstream of the Linux kernel developers & others (fill in other names > as you see fit). Red Hat is downstream of well over 99.99% of the 'major > work'. > > Red Hat has built a business around using freely available software. Actually, as I stated earlier in this thread, my question about ethics pre-supposes and implies nothing of the sort. I asked the question because it was brought up by others. I agree with you 100%. Linux is a GPL product whether distributed by a for-hire vendor or a community maintainer. I'm interested in every aspect of the CentOS project and its relationship to RedHat and its policies. I'm still hoping to convince my employer that CentOS would be a good choice for at least some of the servers and desktops I maintain. Most of these are still at the RH9 level. As a frugal person, I question what the company really gets much out of a maintenance contract other than expense, most especially so if you read the companion thread about experiences with paid support from RedHat. Thanks for your insightful comments. -- Collins When I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.... The Berlin Wall has fallen. - Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt